Jairam Ramesh vs Manusmriti: Unpacking Bharat’s Labour Policy Battle

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 1st November: Bharat’s political landscape often witnesses passionate debates centered on religion, history, and identity, with the latest flashpoint being the Union Labour Ministry’s draft Shram Shakti Niti (2025). This labour policy draft, which explicitly claims that the Manusmriti—a foundational ancient Hindu legal text—embeds the moral basis of labour governance in Bharat’s civilisational fabric, has sparked a fierce political controversy, particularly with Congress leaders accusing the ruling BJP of attempting to undermine the Bharatiya Constitution. This article analyses the nuances of this controversy, its historical context, and the implications for Bharat’s socio-political discourse and labour policy.

Congress’s Critique: Manusmriti and Constitutional Contradictions

On 29th October 2025, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh publicly condemned the Shram Shakti Niti draft policy, suggesting that invoking Manusmriti signals a departure from the constitutional values enshrined by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Bharatiya Constitution. Ramesh’s objection centers around the perception that Manusmriti represents archaic, casteist, and regressive social hierarchies that conflict with the principles of equality, secularism, and social justice. He articulated that the BJP, along with the RSS’s ideological lineage, has historically rejected the Constitution itself, as it does not draw from Manu’s values. To Ramesh, the draft policy’s reference to Manusmriti epitomizes a troubling ideological shift back to caste-based discrimination and away from constitutional democracy.​

The Modi Govt's draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 released earlier this month for public feedback explicitly claims that the Manusmriti embeds ”the moral basis of labour governance within India's civilisational fabric, centuries before the rise of modern labour law.”

This return to… pic.twitter.com/852zXLdxJ5

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) October 29, 2025

This critique linked BJP’s policy initiative to a broader political strategy perceived by Congress as anti-Hindu. Congress also points to other instances—such as opposing Hindu temple claims through laws like the Places of Worship Act and refusing to affirm the historicity of Lord Ram—as reflective of BJP’s exclusionary stance toward Bharat’s Hindu majority. Jairam Ramesh’s allegations further implied an insult to the constitution by invoking a text seen by many as the root of casteism.​

Manusmriti’s Complex Legacy in Bharatiya Legal and Social Reform

However, this political framing overlooks the complex and often contradictory role Manusmriti has played in Bharat’s legal and social history. Notably, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, often cited by Congress as the architect of the Constitution, himself drew on Manusmriti’s progressive injunctions while drafting the Hindu Code Bill in 1949. Ambedkar emphasized that the ancient Smritis, including Manusmriti, advocated women’s rights to inheritance—a radical reform he sought to codify legally. He critically acknowledged how prevailing customs, often endorsed by colonial courts, obstructed these progressive norms. By reclaiming Manusmriti’s egalitarian aspects, Ambedkar sought to modernize Hindu personal laws, promoting gender equality and dismantling patriarchal biases.​

This historical fact complicates Congress’s narrative that Manusmriti is inherently regressive and that referencing it is fundamentally anti-constitutional. Ambedkar’s engagement with the text shows a pragmatic and scholarly approach—recognizing its potential merits alongside its flaws—rather than outright rejection.​

The Labour Policy’s Civilisational Ethos: Tradition Meets Modernity?

The draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 situates labour within the Indic civilisational worldview, where work (“Shram”) is a sacred duty contributing to dharma (righteousness). It underscores that ancient texts, including Manusmriti, Yajnavalkyasmriti, and Arthashastra, articulated frameworks for fair wages and worker protection, predating modern labour laws by centuries. This invokes Bharat’s indigenous social contract ethos as foundational to contemporary governance, rather than mere Western imports. The policy aims to address Bharat’s labour challenges—wage disparity, gender imbalance, and skills mismatch—within this civilisational framework, emphasizing social harmony and inclusive growth.​

From this perspective, the policy is an attempt to blend Bharat’s traditional wisdom with modern governance. However, critics view this as a regressive rebranding of caste-based hierarchies or exclusionary ideologies that conflict with constitutional ideals. The truth probably lies in the tension between these viewpoints, reflecting the ongoing negotiation between heritage and reform in Bharat.

Congress’s Historical Posture on Hindu Majority and Secularism

Congress’s opposition to BJP here is consistent with its longstanding political posture, often accused of alienating Hindu sentiments through acts like defending the Places of Worship Act—seen by many as curbing Hindu reclamation rights—and distancing itself from symbols like Lord Ram. Jahiram Ramesh’s controversial stance echoes Congress’s previous criticisms, but also exposes contradictions, especially given Ambedkar’s pragmatic use of Manusmriti for progressive reform.

Accusations that Congress “mollycoddles” anti-Hindu elements ironically contrast with its self-identification as defender of secularism and the constitutional order. This exposes the complexities of Bharatiya political discourse, where constitutionalism, religious identity, and political strategy intersect in multidimensional ways.​

Beyond Political Polarization for Informed Discourse

The debate around Shram Shakti Niti’s invocation of Manusmriti symbolizes the deeper challenge of engaging with Bharat’s pluralistic legal and cultural heritage in policymaking. Political parties often weaponize historical texts for ideological battles, obscuring nuanced realities. Manusmriti, while containing some regressive prescriptions, also holds fragments of ethical governance and social justice, selectively invoked by visionaries like Ambedkar to foster reform.

A mature democracy requires dissecting such legacies beyond caricatures—acknowledging contradictions, distinguishing tradition from misinterpretation, and focusing on policies’ outcomes rather than symbolic posturing. Shram Shakti Niti’s challenge is to translate Bharat’s moral and civilisational ethos into labour laws that uplift all workers, transcending old hierarchies and advancing equity.

Navigating Constitution, Tradition, and Politics

The Congress party’s vehement objections to the draft Shram Shakti Niti’s mention of Manusmriti highlight the intense ideological battles characterizing Bharat’s political discourse. Yet, these positions also reveal contradictions—especially considering Ambedkar’s historical reliance on Manusmriti’s principles for progressive reforms under the Constitution Congress claims to uphold. BJP’s invocation of Manusmriti in labour governance attempts to root contemporary policy in indigenous tradition, a move that is both politically symbolic and practically challenging.

Ultimately, the controversy underscores the necessity for informed, nuanced debates detached from simplistic political narratives. Bharat’s constitutional democracy strives to harmonize ancient ethos with modern principles of justice and equality. This balancing act demands less polemics and more thoughtful engagement on how best to incorporate heritage without compromising constitutional values or social inclusion. The future of Bharat’s labour governance—and indeed its democracy—depends on navigating these complexities with intellectual honesty and a commitment to equitable development.